1 Corinthians 14:34 Women Should Remain Silent In The Church24 Things Women Should Stop Wearing After Age 30Ten Things Women Should Never Say To Their Men23 Things Every Woman Should Stop Doing11 Things a Woman Should Never Do For a Man

What becomes apparent from these headlines is that a lot of people really like to tell women what they should do, how they should behave, what they should say.

But what happens if I ask the same question about men? 12 Things Men Should Do But Don't8 Women Christian Men Should Never MarryEvery Man Should KnowThe 75 Things Every Man Should Do48 Things Every Man Should Know

The difference? People tell women what they should do, but they tell men what they should know. And the difference is caused by the patriarchal belief that men should have the information needed to make good decisions; women are considered unable to make decisions for themselves, which is why they must be told what to do.

Yet, even if women prove themselves able to make decisions, they really should let a man make them, because decision making is the man's prerogative.

And so we find that all of these "women should" conversations are cultural constructs created by patriarchy to keep women from aspiring to full equality. All of this becomes clearly evident when women move towards equality and show themselves capable of being just as human as the man is: there is always an inevitable push towards inequality. The church, for example, talks eloquently about equality when it comes to salvation, but when it comes to ordination, equality begins to mean something very different. Suddenly women are similar to men, and equality isn't enough to secure the ordination of women, because - we are told - everyone knows men and women are different.

Difference shouldn't subordinate women to men, since it doesn't subordinate men to other men (individual men are different from each other), but because the man is considered the norm, and there can only be one norm, the woman becomes the aberration, the deviation from the norm. In other words, the woman isn't quite as human as the man is. Because she isn't quite as human, she could technically become as human as the man by acting like a man does, but here we find patriarchy working overtime to ensure that women don't, because if women gain equality, patriarchy ceases to exist. To retain the status quo, women are shamed into remaining in their subordinated status by those who have the most to lose: religious authorities, abusive spouses, wealthy landowners (women own 1 % of the world's land), and all those who benefit from subjecting women to their control, and those include other women too. Women are told they aren't quite as good as men are, for the natural inferiority of women is what fuels patriarchy and it's ideology. If women are inferior, they can never become fully human; they can never become what men are.

We may not like to hear it, but that women aren't quite as human as men is the inescapable conclusion of the patriarchal worldview, and the ancient philosophers didn't fear declaring it, but our theologians do, because they can't get rid of this one sentence in the Bible:

So God created humankind in his own image,in the image of God he created humanity;male and female he created them (Genesis 1:27)

Since all humans are created in the Image of God, the norm is God, not the man; the woman isn't an aberration; she is just as god-like as the man is. And since the woman is just as human, all this talk about difference and who-should-do-what doesn't describe how things should be; it depicts our fallen nature that seeks to create artificial divisions that benefit some - usually the ones who created the divisions in the first place. And because of it, they have no place in a theology that seeks to heal and restore humanity torn apart by sin and patriarchy.

We are called to imitate God. Since there is only one God, there can be only one image of God, one way to be a human. And this one image, this one way to be a human, includes both men and women. Instead of telling women what they should do, why don't we tell people that there is a better way to do things, a way that allows everyone to be equally human.

Someone wrote it is the man's responsibility to make his wife the kind of person God wants her to be. Hence God made the man the head, and the woman the body; the head directs and the body obeys.

If your initial reaction was one of a raised eyebrow and "what is he talking about?" you are not alone, especially since the same person would gleefully tell you that everyone is responsible for his or her own sins; God doesn't have grandchildren, only children, or something equally quaint.

But why would God expect men to train women as if they were children? Are women not grownups? And if men should train women to become the people God wants them to be, is every man a gifted teacher? If the blind shouldn't lead the blind, why should a fool try to mold another into his own image in the name of God?

A lot of nonsense is passed as "Biblical manhood and womanhood." It is almost as if we forget everything about reason and rationality as soon as the man's authority is mentioned. Anything goes as long as the man gets to keep his precious authority without having to explain why he has it. For really, if the woman is an equally rational being, there is no reason for the man to have authority. It's a divine "freebie" that the man has just because he is a man - although he really doesn't know how to use it or why he has it in the first place. We are told by the Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) that the first man failed to use his authority, which is why we are in the mess we are in now (visit their website here). But this begs the question, if the most perfect of all men didn't know how to use his authority in a constructive way, why didn't God give the authority to the woman after the fall? Wouldn't that have been a rational thing to do since the man didn't know what to do when given an opportunity?

Authority is given to restrain evil. If the man needs authority, the woman must be evil from creation, which is incidentally what the Greeks thought:

According to Greek mythology, men lived in peace and good health until the first woman, Pandora, entered the world. Pandora unwittingly unleashed disease, evil and general misery on mortals, serving as the gods’ punishment for man’s arrogance in accepting the gift of fire. This complicated tale marks women as a necessary evil in ancient Greek belief. With Pandora, men's other half is introduced to the world, and in depicting women as untrustworthy and even devious, the myth supports the paternal structure of ancient Greek culture (Read the article here)

Hence we find that the concept that the man needs authority is an ancient patriarchal belief that has nothing to do with biblical revelation. For if it is true that the man needs authority to restrain the woman, the woman has to be evil by creation, which means creation was never good, and humans weren't created in the image of God, for God isn't evil.

Yesterday I began to read Dianne Anderson's "Damaged Goods: New Perspectives On Christian Purity," and I didn't get very far until my mind was already filled with ideas. And maybe Anderson echoes my thoughts later in the book, but I felt I had to write them down before I would forget them myself. God's children are never "'damaged goods."

This sentence was all I needed to hear. Suddenly the whole purity movement fell apart at its very core and although I had never been an adherent, the way I dressed and saw myself as a woman while being in the evangelical world was shaped by this sub-culture. And it was all based on a lie; a lie that says grace isn't enough, that you can be damaged beyond repair. But grace is enough.

Grace covers all of our sins, whether of body or mind. That is the hope we have, the good news - the great news. We aren't damaged beyond repair. We can be fixed, and God is in the fixing business, making us new creations on a daily basis. Grace is enough.

And what about this obsession with the body and the neglect of the mind? If we need to be pure - and we do - why should we not be pure in mind and spirit? Why not insist all young people never lie or deceive, and that one lie is enough to disqualify them from marriage? That sounds rather absurd. But if absolute purity of the mind is absurd, why is it not absurd to say that having sex before marriage makes one impure, makes one damaged goods.

Perhaps the anxiety is based on the very real risk of an unwanted pregnancy. It's not something to laugh about, but the answer isn't less sex education, we need more sex education. And not the kind that talks only about abstinence. We need sex education that is based on science and not superstition, just as we need to provide access to free contraceptives without the lectures. But, you say, will this not promote promiscuity? Only if we promote a view that women are objects. If we, on the other hand, talk about men and women as people who make decisions, we promote a healthy view of humanity which allows young people to make their own informed decisions. We do this when it comes to driving. We send our teens to driver's education, hoping they'll learn to drive without crashing. But if they do crash, we take them to the ER, and no one thinks to say, "You are now damaged goods, your license has been revoked for life."

Come to think of it, if we would talk about innocence instead of purity, we would make it the business of grownups to protect children from harm and introduce the subject of sex to teens as something positive, something that belongs to the world of grownups. We do this with most things and no one thinks twice about it, for really, we want our teens to grow up without feeling the pressure of having to become adults too fast, but neither do we want them to remain children forever. Sex is just one of the many things our teens have to learn to deal with before they begin their own lives. Hiding the facts and shaming young people for their very real feelings is not going to produce anything other than guilt, and guilt cripples.

An egalitarian marriage consists of mutual submission, and most egalitarians opt for less patriarchal weddings (vows of obedience are famously absent from the ceremony), but what about the engagement? A wedding is carefully planned, and both make decisions regarding the date and the place, so why does only the woman get an engagement ring, and why does the man surprise the woman with a proposal?The element of surprise has it's origin in the diamond business. When large diamond deposits were found in South Africa, the fear of the loss of value became an acute threat. By introducing the diamond engagement ring in 1939, De Beers successfully created a large market for diamonds, securing their value. The same company realized also that women chose smaller diamonds than men, and so the man was cajoled into buying a ring in secret and surprising the woman with a proposal.

The tradition stuck, for we're still doing it.

In a survey created by Men's Health and the wedding website The Knot, most men feel that a surprise proposal is mandatory:

Don't think so? Well, Men's Health partnered with The Knot.com to ask almost 1,500 engaged or married men and women, and the results suggest guys like to go Old School on proposing. More than 80 percent of the guys thought they should ask permission from his intended's parents before proposing. And more than three-quarters of them said a guy should drop to a knee before popping The Question. (Read the article here)

47 % of the women said the surprise factor was important and only 16 % chose the ring together.

But should a tradition created to inflate the value of a gem be our guide when deciding when and how to become engaged? As an egalitarian Christian I believe our ethics should decide, not the market.

So how can we create an egalitarian engagement? By following the same principles we believe should guide our marriages we can begin our journey to becoming one in a way that affirms our egalitarian beliefs.

One of those principles is mutual decision making.

In the traditional model, the woman is reduced to a passive receiver instead of being an active agent. She cannot decide when she will get engaged (other than nudging the man to propose), or what ring she will get (again, she can influence the decision, but not make it). This will set a precedence for the marriage, one in which the woman has no part in decision making. An egalitarian engagement should therefore secure the woman's agency by allowing the woman to decide with the man when and how the engagement will take place.

But what about the ring? Christian modesty (the real kind, not the fake one) requires that we live within our means. But an ostentatious display of wealth goes against the grain as well. Regardless of what kind of ring you decide to get, consider getting one for both. The man is, after all, getting engaged too.

When I recently got engaged to Jason Dye (of Left Cheek fame; visit the bloghere), we decided jointly that we wanted to get engaged. We chose the rings together (we both got one), we both asked the other "Will you be mine?" and gave a ring as a sign of our love, loyalty, and fidelity. It was as egalitarian as it was romantic.

There are as many ways to get engaged as there are couples; there is no right or wrong way. As long as you feel that your beliefs are accurately represented and that your wishes are respected, getting engaged is a thrilling experience, and one that can give you an opportunity to express your commitment to equality.

I'm sure you all remember Gabriel Powell from the website Grace To You. The reason I mention him again, is because I've been thinking about something he wrote during the debate:

God established the husband/wife role in Genesis 3:16.

But how can it be? Doesn't this verse describe a consequence of sin? Just to make sure we aren't getting ahead of ourselves here, let's go and take a look at what the Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) has to say on the subject.

The editors of Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, John Piper and Wayne Grudem, tell us that Genesis 3:16 is not a prescription of what should be (409).

Not a prescription of what should be.

In other words, according to CBMW, the verse describes a consequence of sin, and can therefore not establish a Christian marriage, for the New Covenant releases us from the consequences of sin; it does not enslave us to sin.

So why does Gabriel tell us, 24 years after Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood was written that Genesis describes how a Christian marriage, or any marriage for that matter, should be arranged? Because that is what the church used to teach, until our modern theologians couldn't keep on repeating the idea that God had punished the woman due to her sole guilt (which has a lot to do with the fact that women were no longer legal minors). And so the verse was returned to being a consequence of sin instead of a prescription of what should be.

But not everyone seems to have realized that the switch ever happened; Gabriel Powell is one of them.

But there is more.

In his e-mail to me, Gabriel had something curious to say about 1 Tim 2-3.

I do agree that masculine verbs/nouns can (and often do) refer to a mixed audience. However what makes 1 Timothy 3:1-7 speak specifically of men is the context. In the immediate preceding verses Paul explicitly prohibits women from teaching or taking authority over men. It is inconceivable that he would immediately turn around and say that the primary teaching/authoritative position is open to men and women. He would be contradicting himself in one breath.

Ah yes... but what if 1 Timothy 2 does not say women are prohibited from teaching men? Then it won't be inconceivable that 1 Tim 3 includes both men and women as the text itself indicates, and Paul wouldn't be found contradicting himself; he would be extraordinarily consistent in his affirmation that all Christians are free to seek the ministry of overseeing.

As evidence that 1 Timothy 2 does not say women are prohibited from teaching men, I offer an excerpt from my latest book Recovering From Un-Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Patriarchy (Chapter 9):Christian: But I thought 1 Timothy 2 says women aren’t allowed to have authority over men?Theologian:Perhaps there is something wrong with the verse, or at least with how we read it?Christian: Could it be the translation again?Theologian:Absolutely. The translation of 1 Timothy 2:11-12 is problematic on more than one level.Christian:But if there is a problem with the translation, there has to be a problem with how we read the text as well. Theologian:Very true.Christian: But if there is a problem with the translation, do we know what 1 Timothy 2:11-12 says in the original? Theologian:We know from Perseus Online Dictionary that authenteo, the Greek word that is usually translated, “to have authority over” in verse 12 had the original meanings “to have full power over” and “to murder.” Justin the Martyr used the word in the following quote: “Euripides wrote, “Power absolute, I say, robs men of life.””[1]Christian:So is the verse saying women shouldn’t have absolute power over men?Theologian:If it does, the verse points to shared authority.Christian:And if it doesn’t?Theologian:Then it tells women they shouldn’t murder men. Christian:It can’t be!Theologian:[Laughs] I agree. But what is of interest is this little word epitrepo, “permit.” Paul writes, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man.” Christian:Why is it of interest?

Theologian:Because the word is used when a request is either granted or withheld. Moses granted the Israelite men the right to divorce their wives, and Jesus expanded the permission to include women too.[2] But this permission was not based on the creation account; it was quite contrary to it.Christian:So why would Paul use such a word if his prohibition was based on creation? And what was the original request he was responding to?Theologian:Those are both good questions. We know that this word, “permit,” is also found in 1 Corinthians 14:34, “Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed (epitrepo) to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says.” Christian:But didn’t we already find those verses problematic?Theologian:We did. But you see, traditionally 1 Corinthians 14:34 was connected to Genesis 3:16, and because of this connection, the prohibition for women to speak in the church was believed to have been based on the concept that God had punished the woman with subjection to the man because of her sole guilt.Christian:But wasn’t the man equally guilty?Theologian:He was.Christian: So, why did God punish the woman if the man was equally guilty? Theologian: He didn’t, which is why the idea was rejected by theologians a few decades ago by common consensus, and Genesis 3:16 became once again a consequence of sin.Christian:But if epitrepo is found in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, which is problematic on so many levels, and in 1 Timothy 2:12-12, which no one can agree on as to its meaning, what does it say about how this particular word is used?Theologian: That maybe there is something about this word that we haven’t noticed before?Christian:Such as?Theologian:Well, look at where the word is found, and how it is used, “You aren’t allowed to speak; you have to be in submission!” “You aren’t allowed to teach; you have to be quiet!” These two are usually conflated to create the general idea that women aren’t allowed to speak, which is why they aren’t allowed to teach. Yet, we all know that not all talking involves teaching, nor does all teaching involve talking. So what kind of speech is prohibited, and what kind of teaching is allowed? And who decides?Christian:So it’s the same problem as we have with masculinity and femininity? Theologian: Exactly. And then there is the question why 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 says women should learn at home while 1 Timothy 2:11-12 says women should learn inthe church in silence and in full submission. Which one is it? Should women learn at home or in the church? And what does this word “silence” refer to anyways? Complete silence, or some kind of qualified silence? If the silence is qualified, what qualifies the silence, and who decides? Christian: Perhaps the word doesn’t refer to verbal silence? Theologian: You’re right, it doesn’t. The word hesuchia found in 1 Tim 2 cannot refer to silence, because the same word is used elsewhere in the Bible with another meaning:When Paul reached the steps, the violence of the mob was so great he had to be carried by the soldiers. The crowd that followed kept shouting, "Away with him!"… "Brothers and fathers, listen now to my defense." When they heard him speak to them in Aramaic, they became very quiet (hesuchia).[3]Theologian:The crowds weren’t just talking; they were in a total uproar, which means the silence that followed wasn’t just about abstaining from speech. We find the same in 1 Timothy 2:1-2.I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone- for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet (hesuchios) lives in all godliness and holiness.[4]Theologian: In other words, if hesuchia refers to silence in verses 11-12, then hesuchios must refer to silence also in verses 1-2—which means we should pray for kings and all of those in authority that we may be silent and never preach the Gospel. Christian:That cannot be!Theologian: It is the logical conclusion. However, if hesuchia refers to quietness of body and soul, instead of silence, Paul is telling people to pray for those in authority so that they would be able to preach the Gospel without fear of persecution. This is especially true since we know that in the first century those in authority often persecuted all kinds of people, and Paul was more than familiar with this having done so himself.

In other words, 1 Timothy 2 does not say women ought to be silent; it says they ought to live the life of quietness, which is something all Christians ought to do. Since most women do not cause a tumultuous uproar, nor should biblical teaching be done in such a way, nor do women seek to hold absolutely power over men, it is impossible that Paul is prohibiting all women from teaching in the church. He must instead be referring to a specific situation in the church of Ephesus in which a woman, or some women, were holding absolute power over men and teaching others with a tumultuous uproar.

Since it is clear that these verses do not tell us that women shouldn't teach, 1 Timothy 3 must tell us that both men and women are able to apply for the ministry of overseeing, especially since the text is gender neutral. And hence we find that the strongest argument against women in ministry is in fact the weakest link in the whole entire chain.

When we realize that not only are their arguments weak, and that the supporters of hierarchical theology do not even know their own theology, egalitarianism begins to look better and better by the minute.

Jezebel is one of those names that causes people to either think of a website, or about getting in touch with an exorcist. A queen in real life, Jezebel has become the symbol of evil and rebellion, especially female rebellion against male authority. But why is that?Jezebel was the daughter of the king of the Sidonians, who married king Ahab of Israel, and hence became the Queen of Israel (1 Kings 16:31)

You'd think that people would respect one of the ancient queens of Israel. Authority is, after all, given by God, or so we are told. But Jezebel isn't given this respect, mainly because she persecuted the prophets of Israel - as if no one else ever did. Israel did, infamously, kill all of her prophets (Luke 11:47-51), but let's not focus on that now.

But even though Jezebel was a on the evil side as far as the ancient regents were concerned, why do we talk about a spirit, instead of a person? How, and when, did the real queen become a demon? A quick look over at Google makes one amazed at the imagination of some people, for the "Jezebel Spirit" is quite the thing. Take a look at these quotes:

Without question, the nastiest, evil, most disgusting, cunning, and seductive spirit in Satan’s hierarchy has to be what many call the Jezebel spirit. This evil spirit has been responsible for not only tearing down churches, pastors, and different Christian ministries, but it has also been responsible for breaking up many marriages, friendships, companies, along with getting many people to commit cold-blooded murders and suicides. (Read the article here)

Wow. What a spirit!What else is it capable of doing? According to another blogger, this spirit has 30 consistent traits. Here's an excerpt of some of them:

1. Refuses to admit guilt or wrong2. Takes credit for everything3. Uses people to accomplish its agenda4. Withholds information7. Lies8. Ignores people9. Never gives credit or shows gratitude10. Criticizes everyone17. Is pushy and domineering21. Commands attention22. Is vengeful23. Attempts to make you look like you’re the Jezebel )(Read the whole list here)

I don't know about you, but doesn't this sound awfully like a narcissist? No wonder people think this spirit is manipulative! But I don't think a personality disorder is cured through exorcism.

But let's move on. What biblical proof is there that this "Jezebel Spirit" exists?

None.

The Bible doesn't talk about a "Jezebel Spirit." It is true that there are two Jezebels in the Bible, one is a queen and the other a false prophet (1 Kings 16:31; Rev 2:20), but they are real people. And although neither is exactly what we would call godly examples, they are still real women who lived and breathed.

So, why do we talk about a spirit? What caused Jezebel to go from a real person to a myth, and then later on to a hype?

I did some digging and found an excellent paper on the subject. "The Jezebel Spirit, A Scholarly Inquiry" (You can download the article here).It appears that the church has never really liked her. Some brave feminist theologians have tried to rescue her reputation, but overall, she has never been well-liked. For example, Jerome considered her a "wanton person," which isn't surprising, considering how much Jerome favored celibacy; anyone who wasn't a monk was a wanton person. But the real damage was done much closer to our time: the power struggles that swept Europe before and after the Reformation saw the name Jezebel thrown around liberally, usually with the goal of condemning queens of the opposite side.

Oratio ad Milites that was delivered to Spain’s Armada fighters inthe latter part of the 16th century termed Queen Elizabeth I the‘second Jezebel’. The Roman Catholic-Protestant struggles of the16th century considered any woman on the opposite side to be aJezebel (Gaines 1999:99). In the opening sentence of the prefaceof The First Blast of the Trumpet against the Monstrous Regimentof Women, John Knox (1558:3) uses Jezebel’s name to call forthancient names of wicked female rulers of the past. He states thatthe empire or rule of a wicked woman, a traitor and a bastard,is abominable before God. Knox (1558:11) affirmed the empireof a woman to be repugnant to nature. Nature paints women tobe weak, frail, impatient, feeble and foolish, and experience hasshown them to be inconsistent, variable, cruel and lacking thespirit of counsel. Knox (1558:45) considered women in authorityas rebels against God.

Yet, they were still talking about a real person. When did Jezebel become a spirit that would possess unsuspecting people? Let's take a look:

Isaac Williams, born in 1802, is, among others, rememberedfor his sermons entitled Female Characters of Holy Scripture.This work includes his examination and evaluation of Jezebel.Williams (1859:178) poses a question: If Ahab was in wickednessbeyond the wicked kings of Israel and the reason was that hewas stirred up to do evil by one worse than himself (Jezebel),how bad must Jezebel have been? She appears like the type thathas appeared in the history of the world – women in high placeswho incite men to commit great crimes. Williams (1859:179)maintains that these women seemed as if they themselves werefully and directly under the influence of evil spirits who usedthem as instruments of seduction.

In other words, men are so easily swayed that any woman can influence them to make bad decisions - hence the need for the man's authority. But since not all women are evil, they must be possessed by a spirit. Ergo, there must be a "Jezebel Spirit," that causes women to influence men to do evil. There just cannot be another explanation according to some, although I suspect that the creation of this spirit in the 19th century has more to do with the legal minority of women that forced them to use manipulation and other devices to get unreluctant men to agree with them, rather than a real spirit that roams around and possesses people. The Victorian era was, after all, an era of superstition more than we care to admit, and more than false belief that still plagues the church comes from this era.

Yet, the honor of creating the "Jezebel Spirit" belongs to the 20th century evangelicals who transformed the real historical person to a hype, scaring children and unsuspecting men and women in the process. See, for example, what Francis Frangipane has written on the subject:

... to understand the spirit of Jezebel, we must understand thegenesis of this personality in the Bible. The first mention of Jezebelis seen in the rebellious, manipulative wife of King Ahab. It wasactually this spirit, operating through Jezebel ….

We are told that Jezebel didn't create this spirit; the spirit existed before her and possessed her, as seen by her manipulative treatment of King Ahab. But what did Jezebel actually do? Well, she murdered a man called Naboth, whose vineyard King Ahab wanted. By sending letters to the town's people in the king's name and asking them to falsely accuse the man and then stone him for blasphemy of the king and God, Queen Jezebel gained access to the vineyard, and was able to hand it over to the king (1 Kings 21).

If the story sounds eerily familiar, it's because another royal person did exactly the same thing - except he didn't want a vineyard; he wanted a woman.

In the morning David wrote a letter to Joab and sent it with Uriah. In it he wrote, "Put Uriah in the front line where the fighting is fiercest. Then withdraw from him so he will be struck down and die." So while Joab had the city under siege, he put Uriah at a place where he knew the strongest defenders were. When the men of the city came out and fought against Joab, some of the men in David's army fell; moreover, Uriah the Hittite died. (2 Sam 11:14-17, NIV)

King David had Uriah murdered to cover his rape of Bathsheba. So why don't we talk about a "David Spirit," a spirit of murder and adultery? It's rather simple: because the Bible says David was a man after God's own heart. You can't exactly say that he was favored by God if he was possessed by an evil spirit (1 Sam 13:14), especially since we know King Saul was tormented by an evil spirit, and God had deposed him from being a king because he was displeased with him.Hence, it appears that the real reason for the vitriol against Jezebel is her idol worship and witchcraft (2 Kings 9:22). Another evangelical, John Paul Jackson, makes that connection:

Jackson (2001:12–15) discerns the Jezebel spirit as a celestial power thathas worldwide influence. It works in consort with demonicpowers, which include spirits of manipulation, religion, control,lust, perversion and the occult. Jackson goes on to elaborate onspecific characteristics of Jezebel and the spirit that is associatedwith her name.

The "Jezebel Spirit" is the spirit of witchcraft, the spirit of the occult. And that is what makes it so repugnant to evangelicals who fear even Harry Potter.

But the real question we must ask is: why do evangelicals claim that Christian women, who have the Spirit of God in them, are possessed by this spirit of witchcraft? And why do they say specifically that women who challenge male authority have this spirit?

I have a theory.

Jezebel was a powerful queen who did as she pleased. She wasn't under any man's authority, other than that of the king, who clearly was pleased with her scheming and idol worship. Jezebel represents everything authority obsessed men fear in women: independence, power, fearless decision making. She is the woman that cannot be controlled, and therefore poses a real threat to unearned and unmerited male authority.

However, she was far from the only independent woman in the Bible. Jael was equally fearless when she killed Sisera; Deborah led the whole nation making decisions on the matters of the law; Hulhad, the prophet, sent a message to a reluctant king; Priscilla taught Apollos; Rahab saved the Israeli spies; Mary said yes to becoming an unwed mother exposing herself to disgrace and death by stoning; Romans 16 mentions a long list of women who worked in the defense of the Gospel. And the list goes on.

No one would dare to say that these women were possessed with a spirit of rebellion and witchcraft, a "Jezebel Spirit." So why do we insult the Spirit of grace and claim our women are possessed, especially when they seek to be faithful to the Bible and the Spirit of God?

We know power is seductive; unearned power is even more so. Perhaps we shouldn't be looking at the women, but turn our eyes to the men, for if this spirit is the spirit of control - look around - who controls whom? Or maybe we should finally let Jezebel rest in peace and only refer to her by her rightful title, the wife of King Ahab, the Queen of Israel.

Author

"Finding the truth is like looking for a needle in the haystack: it's easier if you use a magnet, but you need to know where to look or the magnet becomes useless. To find the truth we need to look for the "why" and not only at the "who," because the "why" explains the "who" in a way that the "who" cannot explain the "why." And when we find the truth, we find freedom." - Susanna Krizo